The New York Times has printed an editorial calling for the abolition of mid-term elections.
Short Version: Because Senators and Representatives have to worry about being held accountable to voters, they won’t do things progressives want them to do. Zero Tolerance Gun Control, Amnesty, Socialized NHS-style health care, the dismantling of the capitalist patriarchy, abortion clinics in every middle school… these things are all very popular with progressives and surely they would be enacted if Congress didn’t have to answer to those stupid bumpkins in flyover country.
Even Shorter Version: Democrats are going to lose this mid term.
The authors of the article are a Duke professor, and a student at Duke. I don’t believe it’s anything more than trying to justify philosophically their hatred of republicans being in charge. Once republicans dominate congress and representatives have longer terms, they’ll write a thoughtful article about how we should have shorter terms for representatives.
I had commented about the nonsensical liberal bias in their thread & the idea that ripping down the house was better than losing. Noticed that their comments are moderation restricted, but not willing to give them another hit on the piece to see if they approved it.
The Dems are desperate today!
It’s always nice when Democrats reveal their desires for a one-party system. It’s important to have periodical reminders of which ones are fascists, and which ones are at semi-committed to republican government.
The Democrats have a one-party system in California and Illinois. How’s that workin’ out?
Well it is a lot of money for them to do voter fraud every 2 years instead of every 4. The midterms are easier to catch voter fraud on as well.
They have a point: Congresscritters spend most of their terms worrying about the next election.
So I suggest term limits. Deprived of the opportunity for a lifetime sinecure they might actually do the right thing (or not).
Liberals hate representative democracy. Imagine the Congress Critters getting all uppity with the President!
The people’s house is elected in its entirety every two years so that those who care to vote can flash mob the Washington crown and jam up their machinery when they go into hyper-drive in scamming the people.
Socialists/communists don’t like the little people screwing around with what the elite declares is good for them.
The dying Gray Lady only believes in mid terms if the Democrats and socialists do well. Otherwise, let’s only have elections in “good” lib years.
Perhaps 2-yrs is too-short a electoral-cycle for national legislators, but a 24-yr. term-limit for Congress-critters is way too-long. We only allow 8-yrs for President, 12 or 16 years is more than reasonable for House and 18 for Senators who are the more “reflective” body.
And a political party that can’t find or train equally-qualified electoral replacements for it’s candidates on a shorter-cycle is too-stupid and incompetent to survive. PLus I would encourage more political engagement since it would remove entrenched party-hacks and give more opportunity for new challengers within the Parties to rise since openings would be created more often — rather than fruitless and futile waiting for a Congress-critter to die before a seat opens in your district-of-residence.
In one sense, they are right – you guys have WAY too many elections. This is a very different thing from ANY elections being too many, which is what I suspect some “progressives” really want.
Your system is broken and badly needs fixing, but going to the polls as often as you do, to the extent that you do, and in the manner that you do is IMO part of the problem.